236 réponses à ce sujet

[The Sarendoctrinator]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

All i wanted to get across is that Day 1 DLC is not and will not always be about "restoring cut content" (Not just with Bioware, with all devs in general) for a price.

You are right that it's not always going to be cut content. The issue is more along the lines of "would it have still made it into the game if it wasn't being created for DLC?" That the content wouldn't have existed otherwise doesn't mean that it was necessarily cut. It might have just never been created outright.

I've always found this confusing. If the content is being created at the same time as the rest of the game, finished by the time the game is released (in the case of Day 1 DLC), and parts of it are even present on the disc... then why is it being developed as DLC at all rather than a part of the base game?

[Allan Schumacher]

I've always found this confusing. If the content is being created at the same time as the rest of the game, finished by the time the game is released (in the case of Day 1 DLC), and parts of it are even present on the disc... then why is it being developed as DLC at all rather than a part of the base game?

Because base content can hit lockdown months before the final game is shipped. Alternatives are to put those people to work on a different project, have them do different work, or the alternative of letting them go.

People can also be outright hired (that otherwise would not have been) to work on stuff like this since there's a clearer indication to the economic viability of the hiring. That doesn't mean it's guaranteed to be a profitable venture (the DLC could be a flop, just like any other project). When a developer pursues funding for DLC, they can approach a publisher with a clear business case that is more nebulous than asking for additional funding to add more content. Especially since it's easier to provide a counter perspective of "well, why should we use this funding for the content you're asking for, and not a different part of the project?"

Everyone always wants more resources to add stuff into the game. Always. People like to add kickass stuff into games, and scope creep always happens. At some point lines have to be drawn. But if you can create a separate team with a business case, it shifts from being an example of scope creep to a supporting product.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

The problem, of course, is that people will balk at $70 sticker prices, psychologically.

That's an education issue.  We need to teach them how much money is worth (and how that worth changes).

[Sylvius the Mad]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I've always found this confusing. If the content is being created at the same time as the rest of the game, finished by the time the game is released (in the case of Day 1 DLC), and parts of it are even present on the disc... then why is it being developed as DLC at all rather than a part of the base game?

Because base content can hit lockdown months before the final game is shipped.

My understanding is that this is what happened with the Stone Prisoner.  That content was cut from the game because it wasn't going to be ready in time, and then the game was basically finished but had its release delayed, so that created this large-ish period where the main game was just getting polished and the designers were able to go back and finish Stone Prisoner (but not add it back into the main game).

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 23 novembre 2012 - 07:42 .

[Eurypterid]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
That's an education issue.  We need to teach them how much money is worth (and how that worth changes).

No, what you're proposing is to 'teach' them that the games are worth more. Good luck with that.

[The Sarendoctrinator]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Because base content can hit lockdown months before the final game is shipped. Alternatives are to put those people to work on a different project, have them do different work, or the alternative of letting them go.

People can also be outright hired (that otherwise would not have been) to work on stuff like this since there's a clearer indication to the economic viability of the hiring. That doesn't mean it's guaranteed to be a profitable venture (the DLC could be a flop, just like any other project). When a developer pursues funding for DLC, they can approach a publisher with a clear business case that is more nebulous than asking for additional funding to add more content. Especially since it's easier to provide a counter perspective of "well, why should we use this funding for the content you're asking for, and not a different part of the project?"

Everyone always wants more resources to add stuff into the game. Always. People like to add kickass stuff into games, and scope creep always happens. At some point lines have to be drawn. But if you can create a separate team with a business case, it shifts from being an example of scope creep to a supporting product.

Thanks for the explanation. It does makes more sense now, though I'm still not happy with the way some companies are handling DLC. If everyone just released ultimate editions like DAO's, which was the only way I got to play The Stone Prisoner and the other awesome missions that came with it, then I probably wouldn't mind DLC at all. More content that you guys otherwise wouldn't have been able to create is great, but if it doesn't become available to everyone, then some fans are going to feel left out. And in the case of plot-important missions like Arrival, very confused when they start the next game unless they watched youtube videos.

[Gibb_Shepard]

Eurypterid wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
That's an education issue.  We need to teach them how much money is worth (and how that worth changes).

No, what you're proposing is to 'teach' them that the games are worth more. Good luck with that.

While there will be a small resistance movement out of principle, people will eventually adapt. An extra $10 for crack-for-gamers isn't going to flop the industry; especially if most are informed that the extra price is necessary to keep devs afloat or it will benefit gaming in some way.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Hooray for the video game equivalent of blockbuster mentality.

Modifié par CrustyBot, 23 novembre 2012 - 10:03 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I agree.

Now... if, instead of buying Bioware's Day One DLC, I instead purchased a discount that would give me 50% off all future DLC THAT would be a different story. If Sebastian, Legacy and MotA all were 50% off, I would strongly desire to buy them... even if I wind up spending roughly the same amount anyway.

You're starting to see this with the "season passes" I think.

I did not know what that was until I did a quick Google search for it, but yes. That is exactly what I am advocating. Rats. I can't claim original concept anymore if I see my favorite developers implementing it. 

I know asking about DA3 is a receipe for an instant no, so I'll ask... is Bioware looking at implementing this model for ME4? 

EDIT: I'm just now catching up on the conversation, but I'd like to emphasize this only works when developers actually honor the concept of the original offer. I would say its a bad idea to say "we're going to offer X amount of DLCs," as that can be a sand pit of deception. And I don't believe that making certain DLCs fall under the discount, while others are exempt would ever be a good idea.

The season pass would be every DLC, whether that is weapon packs, story content or what have you. You could even have it be tiered for the type of content:

25% for Story campaigns, 50% for weapon packs, 75% for armor/skin redo's, etc. 

But the whole concept of the model breaks down, of building consumer trust and reducing outrage (while netting the same amount, or even possibly more revenue) if you start nickel and diming people with a DLC that is pure fluff just to get to your "X" number of DLC, or if certain DLC are completely excluded. 

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 23 novembre 2012 - 11:32 .

[Dutchess]

I don't agree games should be even more expensive. I already find the initial price pretty steep, so I tend to wait until the price drops. €60 is a lot of money. And yes, I have to pay in euros, not dollars. $60 is not the same as €60. Technically I would be already paying more than a US customer.

The Leviathan DLC looked interesting, but after reading in reviews that it barely lasted 3 hours, I decided not to purchase it. I found the price really too high for the amount of content I would get. Compared to the base game price, DLC truly seems too expensive.

I also refused to pay extra to get Javik in my game. I got Sebastian for free due to pre-ordering DA2, and found that overall he was lacking compared to the companions originally included in the game, with his romance having almost no content and him not even showing up after Leandra's death. I also had Zaeed for free, and although I liked him, he clearly was less integrated in the game than the original crew, with him having no conversations on the Normandy like you would have with the others. So I decided not to pay €10 for what would most likely be a character with the least content. Based on what I've read on the forums Javik is worth more than Sebastian. In one way that is a step up, because if the companion you have to pay 1/6 of the game price for has less quality and feels more "pasted on" than the companions you already have, it feels sour. In that regard I do think that DLC should be interesting and somehow relevant to the story, considering it is relatively so expensive.

On the other hand, however, you tend to feel cheated when the DLC companion seems very much like an original companion. It raises suspicions. Especially when that DLC chracter turns out to be on your disc already. I think it would be better if companies did not put locked DLC on the disc. Day-one DLC is already tricky, already draws attention to what can be considered company's greed. The customer will feel even stronger about this when the disc he has paid for and is holding in his hand, had content on it he has to pay extra for. In the customer's mind he has paid for that disc and everything that's on it. It's hard to justify you do not yet own a part of the thing that is lying in your house. So if the company insists on walking the fine line of Day-One DLC, I think it would be wisest to let people download said DLC when they want it, and not store it on the disc.

I'm glad Allan took some time to explain how said DLC could be on the disc, but it remains something I have difficulty with to understand. As I said, it's still something that's hard to justify in the eyes of a customer who has purchased a product.

I think Bioware has been going the wrong way with this, because somehow I have ended up more wary of their DLC and less likely to pull my wallet. I have purchased Legacy and MotA, and despite them being enjoyable enough to play through (Legacy more than MotA, with the latter seeming too much of a bad comedy and a Tallis show), I regret paying for them. Looking back, I think I have spent too much money on them for what I got in return.

To illustrate that I'm not guarding my money like Dagobert Duck, I'll point to Dawnguard. I have been counting the days for that DLC to release on PC, and when it became available I paid that €20 without hesitating. Skyrim continuously blew me away with its vastness and how beautiful it all looked and the amount of story that even small, subtle quests could contain. I had full faith in Dawnguard being worth the price tag, and despite the fact that I have not even come around to finishing the DLC's main questline, I do not regret paying for that DLC. It has already become apparent that there was enough content to justify the purchase.

[Fast Jimmy]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I've always found this confusing. If the content is being created at the same time as the rest of the game, finished by the time the game is released (in the case of Day 1 DLC), and parts of it are even present on the disc... then why is it being developed as DLC at all rather than a part of the base game?

Because base content can hit lockdown months before the final game is shipped.

My understanding is that this is what happened with the Stone Prisoner.  That content was cut from the game because it wasn't going to be ready in time, and then the game was basically finished but had its release delayed, so that created this large-ish period where the main game was just getting polished and the designers were able to go back and finish Stone Prisoner (but not add it back into the main game).

I find it EXCEPTIONALLY coincidental that in the past six releases, it is companions who are the ones who are being incredibly close to being finished, but just miss the cutoff to be 100% on the disc. Especially from a developer that is known for companions being one of their top features, according to their customers.

Allan, I know you have a much better insight into how things work, so I'll pose this scenario to you.

People on this thread are saying, incorrectly, that in the final months, BIoware sits around and says "Okay, we have five major projects we need to wrap up things on. Four of them no one would pay extra money for, but that fifth we could charge extra through the nose for, so let's focus on completing the other four, so we can charge for the fifth." That is, as you say, not entirely accurate.

You are saying "we have five major projects we need to finish up. We only have time to finish four. The fifth one is just something we're not going to be able to get done, so its either not going to be in the game at all, or we can finish it later and sell it as DLC."

What I (and possibly others who are less militant, but still cynical enough to be skeptical) think happens is this: "We have five projects we need to finish. We only have time for three. One is deemed unneccessary and lies on the cutting room floor. Three are things like levels, or gameplay functions that could be divorced from the main game, but are not inherently valuable to the player. The fourth option is a companion, which is a high value gameplay element to fans." I HAVE to assume that, given the nature of the Day One DLC for the past three years, the team says "okay, let's cut the content we don't have time for and can't sell, let's finish the content we do have time for and can't sell, and then let's finish up the marketable content after the game goes Gold, because it can stand on its own two legs as a marketable product."

So yes... there is a chance that things could not make the game at all. And these cuts do happen. But as a deadline approaches, the team isn't saying "Man, if only we had more time to finish this companion, I know the fans would love having them!" it is more of "okay, we can finish feature X, Y and the companion on time and make it all part of the vanilla game, or we can finish features X, Y and Z, and then finish the companion later on and sell it on release day as D1DLC."

Not that this is inherently bad... but it does fall more into the truth that some people are asserting, that the D1DLC content is being cherry picked. While it is true that SOME content might not have been included if not for the DLC, it doesn't mean that what is being sold as DLC itself would have been omitted.


But I could be 100% offbase. And would take someone's answer at 100% face value if you say that is, in no way shape or form, how it happens.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 23 novembre 2012 - 04:34 .

[Fast Jimmy]

^

I'm reminded of a law that was put on the ballot in my state about six years ago. It was a law that would raise taxes... but in order to fund libraries. Who wouldn't want to pay less than 1% more in taxes for libraries? You cold hearted fiends!

Except... deep in the laws' writing, it turns out here's what REALLY happened. The law would increase taxes and divert that tax money into the libraries. However, at the same time, it lowered the part of the normal budget that went to libraries and instead diverted that money to other projects that the proposer's of the bill were REALLY trying to fund. So libraries didn't get a dime more in net funding and the hidden projects that were buried deep in the bill is what was really being taxed.

I feel like that's what some people believe is happening with D1DLC. That a companion who is largely integrated into the main game isn't ACTUALLY on the chopping block, but Bioware knows that if they use the time they would have devoted to finishing that companion up on other projects/content, they can make the less glorious content part of the vanilla game and then finish up the companion and make it D1DLC.

Again... not that this is inherently bad, but its just not 100% upfront.

And, again, if someone can say to me that this is not at all what happens, then I will take their word for it. But its just something that seems a little too coincidental (unfinished companions in the past six games) for me to not notice a trend.

[OdanUrr]

Not that great an article.

[Brockololly]

t3hTwinky wrote...

Fallout: New Vegas had some of the best DLC I've ever seen.

Minor hooks in the main game get fleshed out into their own stories, which in turn are all related to each other. How it should be done, imo.

Yup. The way New Vegas integrated its DLC into an overarching story from DLC to DLC and had those small hooks present in the main game was great. And then they all came out after the main game had been out for a bit so it wasn't Day 1 DLC that made you feel like you were getting an incomplete or inferior product if you only purchased the main game.

CrustyBot wrote...

Hooray for the video game equivalent of blockbuster mentality.

Seriously. Because that's worked so well for the film industry.



My problem with BioWare DLC  are a couple things. First, the arbitrary need to pay for them with BioWare Bucks or whatever fake currency they have. Just let me use my CC directly. Secondly, on PC at least, the DLC never ever goes on sale. And third, the Day 1 DLC are now almost exclusively companions. Which its to BioWare's credit that they have gotten good at integrating them into the plot via banter and so forth like Shale or Javik (not Zaeed). But that kind of DLC makes it less likely I'll want to ever buy that companion if I don't buy it Day one, because so much of that content is going to be accessed by bringing that companion with you through out the whole game. That's why if you have to do Day One DLC, have it be a Warden's Keep style mission that can be easily accessed  and get all the content even after you finish the game. And what would be more an incentive to buy would be having that sort of standalone mission have some narrative hooks that could tie into future DLCs, New Vegas style.

[Fast Jimmy]

^

Which one could argue Omega was one of for ME3.

The other trick is to not leave your entire lore world in ruins, making no one care at all about these side quests. If people say 'it doesn't matter if I get the DLC, as everything is made invalid by the story of the main plot' then that, in and of itself, is going to murder your DLC options.

Also, as someone said earlier, free MP DLC is the best idea, even if it means a MP system that encourages microtransactions in some way. Splintering the MP community between haves and have nots is even more of a disaster than doing the same with SP DLC.

[Gatt9]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

In Exile wrote...

The problem, of course, is that people will balk at $70 sticker prices, psychologically.

That's an education issue.  We need to teach them how much money is worth (and how that worth changes).

That creates a number of different issues.  First, and foremost,  what's the cost of Game Development?  Before we even think of raising prices,  we need to talk about this in depth.

-Platform owners charge an arbitrary fee for all titles released on their platform
-Platform owners charge $40,000 for a patch
-Publishers add massive overhead to a project without generating any work,  CD Project Red was mention in an interview that he knew two artists sitting beside each other but couldn't collaborate without going through a project manager.  Fargo pegged the Publisher adds ~25% to the "Cost" of developing a game.

These three things alone are completely arbitrary,  completely unnecessary,  additions to the budget of a game.  If we want to talk about costs,  the very first thing we need to do from a Industry health standpoint is cut unnecessary costs.

Which means,  eliminate the closed box platforms.  All that's happening here is that Consumers are expected to pay an ongoing tax for the benefit of owning one of those boxes,  a tax that does not improve the game in any way.

It means,  eliminate the Publishers.  It's no longer 1985,  they aren't needed to put boxes on the shelves,  and boxes aren't necessary anyways.  They do not generate any work,  they do not improve the project,  but they add massive cost to the games.  All they do is function like a bank,  and we've had a banking system for a couple of centuries,  so do we really need them?  Especially since if you remove the parasitic effect of Publishers,  one or two releases down the road studios will all be financially independent.  Publishers keep 80% - > 90% of the revenues from a title,  put it in the Developers hands and Publishers suddenly become completely unnecessary.

Right there,  we can achieve massive cost savings.  Fix those two problems,  Platform owners and Publishers,  and we shrink gaming budgets by a massive percentage.

Then we could talk about increasing the cost of games,  but at that point,  it'd be completely unecessary to do so.  Obsidian projects they'll generate a game as large as Baldur's Gate with 4 million.  Which indicates the actual real cost of developing a video game isn't all that much higher than it was a decade ago.

There's a high degree of FUD being tossed around by Publishers about the cost of developing a video game,  primarily because they don't want to tell people that the majority of the "increase" in developing games is by parasitic entities who aren't contributing to a game's development.

I honestly doubt anyone really wants to go down the road of education,  because if we do and we expose the parasitic costs then the end result isn't going to be an increase in the cost of games,  it's going to be a full-on rebellion as consumers demand that platform owners and publishers downsize their bloated footprints.

Modifié par Gatt9, 23 novembre 2012 - 05:12 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

I am not a Sebastian fan, nor an Elthina one. However, I noticed the following in the Exiled Prince:

The Sebastian DLC was great for several reasons and I didn't have the feeling that it was cut from the game. In fact I had the feeling that the team who made it provided a better experience when compared to the rest of the game. The dialogues of Sebastian and Elthina were much better than most of the ones in the rest of the game. Especially Elthina was great, because her dialogues felt more like the ones in DA:O. She responded to current events much like the NPCs in DA:O would. She also provided some background info about Hawke. It's obvious the DLC had a positive effect on her and transformed her into a deeper character who was well portrayed. Too bad one could not make her act, though.

However, when such a DLC becomes a day-1 DLC and one has to pay for it then it obviously raises the total price of the game. That's fine. You can do without, but fans like me buy it anyway. And that's what BW is counting on. One could say it is worth it, but one could also say that the standard followers and NPCs were held to a lower quality standard than Sebastian and Elhina. That's disappointing and, given the rushed feeling the game had anyway, it highlighted that difference in quality.

I am leaning toward the negative interpretation of the above, considering the business practices surrounding the SE and the marketing of the game, which involved promises that were not kept and one had to decide to get the SE (or not) before proper info was available. That does not diminish the quality of the DLC, but does leave a bad taste in my mouth.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 23 novembre 2012 - 05:37 .

[Kronner]

I like DLC (i.e. I do not mind paying for it) as long as it actually adds something substantial to the game.

Good DLC - Lair of the Shadowbroker (ME2), The Missing Link (Deus Ex HR) etc.

Bad DLC - Armor and weapon packs. Skins..stuff like that. These should be released for free.

Unfortunately, it seems like most companies try to milk the cash cow as hard as possible. Instead of making proper addons to their games, they try to sell insignificant stuff for a couple of bucks. Not cool.

Also, Day 1 DLC is a joke. Just release it for free as a thank you to your PAYING customers.

"Exclusive" (pre-order, special versions etc.) DLC is an abomination. Either make it available to everyone or not at all.

Modifié par Kronner, 23 novembre 2012 - 05:46 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Gatt9 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

In Exile wrote...

The problem, of course, is that people will balk at $70 sticker prices, psychologically.

That's an education issue.  We need to teach them how much money is worth (and how that worth changes).

That creates a number of different issues.  First, and foremost,  what's the cost of Game Development? 

One important aspect of the education should be that prices have nothing at all to do with development costs.

Just because something is cheaper for me to make is no reason for me to sell it for less.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I've always found this confusing. If the content is being created at the same time as the rest of the game, finished by the time the game is released (in the case of Day 1 DLC), and parts of it are even present on the disc... then why is it being developed as DLC at all rather than a part of the base game?

Because base content can hit lockdown months before the final game is shipped.

My understanding is that this is what happened with the Stone Prisoner.  That content was cut from the game because it wasn't going to be ready in time, and then the game was basically finished but had its release delayed, so that created this large-ish period where the main game was just getting polished and the designers were able to go back and finish Stone Prisoner (but not add it back into the main game).

I find it EXCEPTIONALLY coincidental that in the past six releases, it is companions who are the ones who are being incredibly close to being finished, but just miss the cutoff to be 100% on the disc. Especially from a developer that is known for companions being one of their top features, according to their customers.

In Shale's case, we were told she was cut several months before the initial release date.  She'd been discussed at length on the forum, but then one day when someone asked about her David told us she'd been cut due to time.  He was very apologetic.

But then the game was delayed by EA, and BioWare revealed that they were going to use the extra time to finish Shale's content.  So we saw that one happening in real time, and that's how it went.

That you find that scenario implausible is immaterial.  We have no grounds to judge its plausibility, because we don't know what BioWare's workflow is.  Moreover, the one time we have been able to see these sorts of decisions being made, this is exactly how it went.

To quote Prokhor Zakharov, "Man's unfailing capacity to believe what he prefers to be true rather than what the evidence shows to be likely and possible has always astounded me."

[Sylvius the Mad]

Eurypterid wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

That's an education issue.  We need to teach them how much money is worth (and how that worth changes).

No, what you're proposing is to 'teach' them that the games are worth more. Good luck with that.

They're measuring value incorrectly.  It's a numeracy issue.

[Seifer006]

Kronner wrote...

I like DLC (i.e. I do not mind paying for it) as long as it actually adds something substantial to the game.

Good DLC - Lair of the Shadowbroker (ME2), The Missing Link (Deus Ex HR) etc.

Bad DLC - Armor and weapon packs. Skins..stuff like that. These should be released for free.

Unfortunately, it seems like most companies try to milk the cash cow as hard as possible. Instead of making proper addons to their games, they try to sell insignificant stuff for a couple of bucks. Not cool.

Also, Day 1 DLC is a joke. Just release it for free as a thank you to your PAYING customers.

"Exclusive" (pre-order, special versions etc.) DLC is an abomination. Either make it available to everyone or not at all.

This. So Much This.

[Realmzmaster]

The consumer is never going to agree that games should be more expensive. The economics of the situation is that as costs go up and revenues remain the same something has to give. What has happened is that publishers and developers put less in the base product as compared to games that came out in the 90's and early 2000's.I will go back even further to AutoDuel (1985) by Origin Systems.
The base game included the game (on 5 1/4 disk) the manual with New Driver's Guide, player reference card, NorthEast sector map, with a miniature toolkit and Autoduel patch. Now you be lucky if you get a printed manual that barely covers the game with absolutely no design notes or other goodies. All of that is now reserved for the Collector's Edition where a higher price can be charged.

The reason is to control costs. As far as pricing is concerned all companies use different pricing strategies depending on the market. Price skimming is charging what the market can bear. Price Penetration is used to enter a market. The company charges a low price to gain market share. You also have psychological pricing. which is simply giving the perception of being cheaper example pricing something at $59.99 instead of $60.

The standard pricing strategy is price skimming charging what the market will bear.

For prices to remain where they are costs must be contained which means something goes. Timing is everything especially when it comes to dlc. Wait to long and you will miss sales. Day 1 dlc make anger some, but it makes sense when timing is taken into consideration.

[CELL55]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

*SNIP*

As a gamer to a gamer, if you ever feel a game company is nickel and diming you and treating you unfairly, the best way to let them know is to not reward them by purchasing their products. That's probably always the strongest message you can send.

*SNIP*

I take issue with this. If, for example, I felt that Bioware was nickle and diming me, I couldn't go spend my money on another Dragon Age or Mass Effect game, as only Bioware makes those. There really isn't anything else quite like those on the market IMO, and boycotting then just seems counterproductive.

A lot of game companies make different games from each other (except games like Sports games and FPS games), so I can't really boycott one company and support its competition now can I? Mass Effect 3 pissed me off to no end, but it's not really similar enough to games like Gears of War or Dead Space that I can turn to alternatives for solace. I can either keep shilling out for Mass Effect DLC and be dissapointed, or I can abstain, and not get any Mass Effect whatsoever. Either way is a poor choice, and I don't really see any middleground or alternatives.

[Fast Jimmy]

But then the game was delayed by EA, and BioWare revealed that they were going to use the extra time to finish Shale's content. So we saw that one happening in real time, and that's how it went.

That you find that scenario implausible is immaterial. We have no grounds to judge its plausibility, because we don't know what BioWare's workflow is. Moreover, the one time we have been able to see these sorts of decisions being made, this is exactly how it went.

To quote Prokhor Zakharov, "Man's unfailing capacity to believe what he prefers to be true rather than what the evidence shows to be likely and possible has always astounded me."

Lol Quoting Alpha Centauri will always gain points in my book.

That being said, I don't find the above scenario implausible... one time. I truly believe that Shale as D1DLC was just as you describe (and the fact that it was given free for new purchases makes it seem even more legit). I find it EXTREMELY unlikely that this exact scenario has played itself out again, like clockwork, in every game Bioware has released since DA:O. I think it is much more likely that it happened once and that Bioware saw this accidental course of events worthwhile to act as a DRM, and later as a way to add extra revenue.

Again... I don't mind paying the money. But I won't, simply because of the (what I view as) unscrupulously marketed way the price is being presented. Charging a premium price for a premium story to be sold on the very first day for the have's and have not's is a terrible PR action and a poor distribution mentality.